3 ms·

> Google has almost 50,000 employees. Not all of them are intelligent, well-adjusted people. Their responses to you that I have seen show no indication of unde

> Google has almost 50,000 employees. Not all of them are intelligent, well-adjusted people. Their responses to you that I have seen show no indication of underlying issues. Indeed they almost all seem to indict you as being overly obsessed with showing your infallibility with regards to you leaving Google. This conversation has started off in a similar manner. > "Blacklisted" implies inability to get jobs, and it hasn't been nearly that bad for me because I'm ostensibly good at what I do. I've just had to deal with annoyances, like inappropriate questions on job interviews. This is incredibly vague and you use it to imply that Google employees have emailed potential employers of yours and 'poisoned the well'. Lets make this clear. Have you collected any tortious intereference settlements against Google relating to potential employers you have interviewed for? > The original purpose of shared blacklists was to shut out union risks That is utterly irrelevant. This is not about union problems in any way, this is about a different illegal agreement. > I'd like to fix technology. That's an agenda. What's wrong with having "an agenda" This is pretty deliberately obtuse, you know exactly what I am stating, that you appear to have an anti-Google agenda in your comments, regardless of the actual topic of discussion.

jfjdjrnfmfm 13y ago
larry?
- hahainternet 13y ago
  I wish! I doubt Google will even buy my IP :( I just think the whole 'Google fired me' angle Michael always brings to the discussion irrelevant. These anti poaching agreements were seriously immoral and they have literally nothing to do with Unions.
goblin89 13y ago
This discussion is curious to me. I've heard the sentiment “fire your employee when they show attitude”, and no doubt that an attitude coupled with mental instability (hinted at by another commenter) would make an employee troublesome in the eyes of the employer. However, I can't see how at all this is relevant and why it's taken into account in evaluating michaelochurch's comment. For example, one of his statements is: > The Valley is fucking terrified of unions. So terrified that if you even seem like you might be leaning that way, executive-level people in major companies will go out of their way to fuck up your career. A lot of the back-channel reference checking that goes on in the Valley is to avoid taking on a potential unionist. No one cares if you were a mediocre performer 3 jobs ago. We surely could question the anecdotal nature of OP's experience and call for more evidence, yet commenters start implying that the person is writing this out of mental instability or evil agenda. > you appear to have an anti-Google agenda in your comments IMHO it seems natural that pro-Google comments from other employees of the company, which you mention as answering to OP elsewhere, too might likely have an agenda of their own.

jfjdjrnfmfm 13y ago

larry?

hahainternet 13y ago
I wish! I doubt Google will even buy my IP :( I just think the whole 'Google fired me' angle Michael always brings to the discussion irrelevant. These anti poaching agreements were seriously immoral and they have literally nothing to do with Unions.

goblin89 13y ago

This discussion is curious to me. I've heard the sentiment “fire your employee when they show attitude”, and no doubt that an attitude coupled with mental instability (hinted at by another commenter) would make an employee troublesome in the eyes of the employer. However, I can't see how at all this is relevant and why it's taken into account in evaluating michaelochurch's comment. For example, one of his statements is: > The Valley is fucking terrified of unions. So terrified that if you even seem like you might be leaning that way, executive-level people in major companies will go out of their way to fuck up your career. A lot of the back-channel reference checking that goes on in the Valley is to avoid taking on a potential unionist. No one cares if you were a mediocre performer 3 jobs ago. We surely could question the anecdotal nature of OP's experience and call for more evidence, yet commenters start implying that the person is writing this out of mental instability or evil agenda. > you appear to have an anti-Google agenda in your comments IMHO it seems natural that pro-Google comments from other employees of the company, which you mention as answering to OP elsewhere, too might likely have an agenda of their own.